Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2014Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:46 am Post subject:

I spend time on a forum interacting with people aggressively expressing opinions with which I strongly disagree for the most part and have no desire to have some authority silence them, but sure, maybe I'd feel exactly the opposite about people voicing an opinion with which I generally agree.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado buffer zone in 2000. So apparently buffers can be constitutional when we had Rehnquist, O'Connor, Stevens, and Souter, but not when we have Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

I don't have a well developed idea about the constitutionality of them, personally. I'm wary of anything that limits first amendment rights. However, assuming that existing laws against harassment will protect women, I think, is ridiculous. The purposes of anti-abortion protests at health clinics, in my personal experience, is that they exist specifically to harass and intimidate. If existing laws protected women this would be a defunct movement, but they don't, and protesters can stand on the sidewalk in front of a clinic and scream that they hope a woman is raped and murdered with impunity as she enters the clinic. They can call her a murderer as they take pictures of her and her car, find her personal information and share her decision with her friends, neighbors, kids, parents, and employers. The purposes of these activities is to intimidate. To terrorize. So, depending on harassment laws that already weren't working when buffer zones were instituted seems like avoiding doing anything about the problem that people are victimizing others for exercising their legal rights._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

I think you should at some point experience the protests that happen at abortion clinics, so you know what it is you're defending. At least watch some videos._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2014Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:09 pm Post subject:

Dogen wrote:

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado buffer zone in 2000. So apparently buffers can be constitutional when we had Rehnquist, O'Connor, Stevens, and Souter, but not when we have Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

I really don't have a problem with that law, seeing as it doesn't function the way the MA law did. Justice Stevens' opinion seems sound to me.

Quote:

I don't have a well developed idea about the constitutionality of them, personally. I'm wary of anything that limits first amendment rights. However, assuming that existing laws against harassment will protect women, I think, is ridiculous. The purposes of anti-abortion protests at health clinics, in my personal experience, is that they exist specifically to harass and intimidate. If existing laws protected women this would be a defunct movement, but they don't, and protesters can stand on the sidewalk in front of a clinic and scream that they hope a woman is raped and murdered with impunity as she enters the clinic. They can call her a murderer as they take pictures of her and her car, find her personal information and share her decision with her friends, neighbors, kids, parents, and employers. The purposes of these activities is to intimidate. To terrorize. So, depending on harassment laws that already weren't working when buffer zones were instituted seems like avoiding doing anything about the problem that people are victimizing others for exercising their legal rights.

I disagree that the purpose of those protests is to harass and intimidate women, but acknowledge that one of the more common methods used is harassment and intimidation. Union disputes are much the same, though in many cases have explicit legal protection. If the purpose of anti-abortion events was just to harass and intimidate women, wouldn't that make the anti-abortion stance merely a pretext, a means to an end, and indicate that the protesters really don't have a problem with abortion as they claim?

If the purpose of anti-abortion events was just to harass and intimidate women, wouldn't that make the anti-abortion stance merely a pretext, a means to an end, and indicate that the protesters really don't have a problem with abortion as they claim?

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado buffer zone in 2000. So apparently buffers can be constitutional when we had Rehnquist, O'Connor, Stevens, and Souter, but not when we have Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

there was a pretty terrifying bit of analysis on NPR this morning, about the extent to which the current court has rolled back precedents.

i don't think it can all be blamed on sotomayor and kagan._________________aka: neverscared!

I spend time on a forum interacting with people aggressively expressing opinions with which I strongly disagree for the most part and have no desire to have some authority silence them, but sure, maybe I'd feel exactly the opposite about people voicing an opinion with which I generally agree.

no - what you need to experience is a face-to-face (with no buffer zone) interaction with people who _disagree_ with your opinion.

sorta like the one that the women trying to go to these clinics are experiencing.

no matter how vituperative an argument on line gets, it is orders of magnitude less frightening than one in person. with a stranger. who gives every indication of being able to do you harm.

_that's_ when you appreciate a buffer zone. and realize how much you can hear, even if the protesters aren't screaming in your ear._________________aka: neverscared!

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2014Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:07 am Post subject:

mouse wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

I spend time on a forum interacting with people aggressively expressing opinions with which I strongly disagree for the most part and have no desire to have some authority silence them, but sure, maybe I'd feel exactly the opposite about people voicing an opinion with which I generally agree.

no - what you need to experience is a face-to-face (with no buffer zone) interaction with people who _disagree_ with your opinion.

sorta like the one that the women trying to go to these clinics are experiencing.

no matter how vituperative an argument on line gets, it is orders of magnitude less frightening than one in person. with a stranger. who gives every indication of being able to do you harm.

_that's_ when you appreciate a buffer zone. and realize how much you can hear, even if the protesters aren't screaming in your ear.

A disgruntled Yankees fan who was caught sleeping through a recent game against the Boston Red Sox is suing after two announcers poked fun at his slumber on camera.

The New York Post reports Andrew Robert Rector filed a $10 million lawsuit against Major League Baseball, ESPN, and announcers Dan Shulman and John Kruk for allegedly directing a mean-spirited ďavalanche of disparaging wordsĒ after he fell asleep in the stands during the game April 13.

I decide all of life's dilemmas through maxims. For instance, "nothing is so useless as a general maxim." Which is both a quote (Thomas B. Macauly) and a maxim.

That's why no one believes verbal abuse is a big deal. Because there's a pithy saying about it._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

If what they thought of women trying to access health clinics were the only concern we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's the literal attempts to terrorize them. That was a pretty sloppy attempt at moving the goal post._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman